On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:31:48 -0700 David VomLehn <dvomlehn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough that race > conditions now exist between the init_post() open of /dev/console and > initialization of the console device. When this occurs, opening /dev/console > fails and any applications inherited from init have no standard in/out/error > devices. This is expected behavior if no console device is available, but > quite unfortunate in the case where the console is just a bit slow waking up. > > Some buses, such as USB, offer no guarantees about how long it takes to > discover devices, so there is no reliable way to distinguish between a missing > console and a slow one. The pragmatic approach taken in this patch is to > wait for a while to see if a console shows up, and just go on if it doesn't. > The default delay is 1000 msec (1 second). > > There are two new command line parameters: > consolewait Wait forever for a console to be registered > consoledelay=msec Use the given number of milliseconds as the delay > interval instead of the default This is all pretty nasty, isn't it? Let's step back for a bit from any implementation and ask "what is the ideal behaviour"? I think it's one of a) we permit init_post()'s open() to succeed. Console output is buffered by the kernel (could be in the printk log_buf). When the initial console is eventually registered, we flush all the queued characters into it. b) we block in init_post(), waiting for the initial console to become available. I think b) is better. Simpler, safer, less likely for information loss if the kernel were to crash in that delay window. Am I right? Did I miss any options? If we want b) then how to do it? One possibility: the initcalls have been completed when init_post() is called. How about: if one of those initcalls will be asynchronously registering a console, it should inform the console layer about this. It should call the new i_will_be_adding_a_console_soon() function within its initcall. The console subsystem will remember this, and we can cause init_post() to block until that registration has occurred. We'll need to be able to handle errors, and we'll need to be able to handle the case where the initcall function isn't sure whether or not it will be registering a console. So there will also need to be an oops_im_not_adding_a_console_after_all() function, which will withdraw the effects of i_will_be_adding_a_console_soon(). Which means that i_will_be_adding_a_console_soon() will need to return a handle for the oops_im_not_adding_a_console_after_all() caller to pass. If init_post() is currently blocked awaiting the arrival of the console, oops_im_not_adding_a_console_after_all() will unblock init_post() if there are no more potential console registrations pending, and inti_post()'s attempt to open a console will fail. Or something like that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
